410 THE AMERICAN CONTINENT Part in
that country, owing to her proximity to the Chaco, and, though she
expressed herself ready to accept a thirty days' truce, she was not
willing to withdraw or demobilize her forces or even to suspend
mobilization. It proved impossible, also, to arrange an immediate
suspension of hostilities on the basis of a suggestion for the establish-
ment of a neutral zone between the opposing forces and the super-
vision by neutral military officers of their withdrawal outside the
limits of the zone. On the 22nd September the Neutral Commission
put forward a new proposal which contained the first indication that
the possibility of applying coercion was not being overlooked. This
proposal was to the effect that both parties should agree to an 'un-
conditional termination of hostilities5 and to the 'immediate initia-
tion of negotiations for settlement of their differences by means of
an arbitration without reservation'. The Neutral Commission would
send representatives to the Chaco to verify the termination of
hostilities, and if either party should be found to have violated the
armistice it was proposed that the Commission should declare that
country the aggressor and should 'suggest that all Governments of
America withdraw their diplomatic and consular representatives
from that country'. This plan did not meet with the approval of
either disputant. Bolivia refused to agree to unconditional arbitra-
tion but offered to accept a local truce in the neighbourhood of Fort
Boqueron. Paraguay (who was on the point of capturing Fort
Boqueron) reiterated the demands for guarantees of security which
Bolivia had already rejected. Moreover, the plan of the 22nd Septem-
ber encountered opposition from Argentina as well as from the
belligerents themselves.
During August and September 1932 the A.B.C.P. Powers had con-
tented themselves with watching developments and with refraining
from interference in the efforts of the Neutral Commission.1 On the
18th October, however, the Argentinian Government presented a note
to the chairman of the Neutral Commission pointing out that the
adoption of coercive measures, such as the severance of diplomatic
relations which had been suggested by the Commission, could be
c based only on a treaty accepted beforehand by the countries to which
it' was 'to apply'. Argentina, it was explained, had adhered to the
joint declaration of the 3rd August on the understanding 'that only
moral pressure would be involved, supported by the juridical effects
1 Argentina was reported to have made a proposal in the middle of August
for the establishment of a neutral zone, which was accepted by Paraguay but
not by Bolivia; but no step seems to have been taken by the A.B.C.P. group,
as such, between the signature of the agreement of the 6th August and
February 1933.